Posted on 02/05/2015 2:50:39 PM PST by NYer
I am absolutely amazed that you describe the church concept and then do not follow it...where on Earth does it say that everyone gets to decide for him/her self how things should be done.....
Isn’t that funny? They blaspheme God, call the Catholic Church a cult, call Jesus Christ a cracker, and they don’t even go to church. What’s that?
Sorry, that does not work.
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, “NO” (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false.
Even the “founder” of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that “any milkmaid who could read” would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her “interpretation” of the Bible.
Luther opened a “Pandora’s Box” when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals’ “different” interpretations of the Bible.
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word “truth” is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word “truth” never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth.
So how can there be over 30,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the “Truth” (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)? For that matter, aren’t ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming “infallibility” when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office.
Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can’t agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming “infallibility?” When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the “same” non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their “interpretation” of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn’t they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be “Yes.” But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is “No.”
Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the “sheep” (the faithful).
The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
Is the Bible the sole “teaching from God?” No. The Bible Itself states that their are “oral” teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25).
These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers “Sacred Apostolic Tradition.” This type of “Tradition” never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture were those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, as Christians, we are suppose to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)? St. Paul must have “heard” this saying, not read it from any Gospel or “Scripture,” thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in one of his own epistles.
Pope of OURS...he is Pope of ALL Christians...
Your comment: “According to Duns Scotus, transubstantiation was not an article of faith before the thirteenth century.”
That is not correct. The Catholic Church has often after time has documented the teachings and reaffirmed them.
The Apostles believed and taught the Real Presence of Jesus and is contained in the Bible:
1st Corinthians, 11:23-26. “For I received from the Lord what I shall deliver to you.”
23* For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,k that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”l 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
Then why do protestants do it...Catholics have a Consecrated Host...The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ....no "crackers" in our churches!!!
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
I don’t think you understood my comment.
Did Christ "WANT" to suffer and die on the Cross?
"Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done."
If you want to argue with a doctor of your church, that’s fine by me. If it was accepted and settled as far back as the apostles, then why did the Lateran Council take it up?
Thank you for your kind words.
God’s Peace be with you.
That's kind of where Baptism comes in....
Precisely. This works directly again you. The Church is not “any man.”
The Catholic Church clarifies its teachings when necessary. I will try to provide further info later.
The Assumption of the Blessed Mother in 1950 was an example.
Any time : )
He chose to do so, did He not?
:-)
We were born of our mothers’ wombs; we were born again in Baptism. That’s what we believe.
Yeah right...the Apostles thought that Christ was kidding when He said "THIS IS MY BODY"...The true presence of Christ in the Eucharist was understood from the very beginning...13th century???, you have to be kidding...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.